Department of Agriculture

[kandrathe]

Seriously consider that sometimes, scale matters, and going big is not always the most apt. Solar\wind tech-projects does not necessarily have to be at Hoover dam level to have a meaningful and positive impact.

I'll distill to your main point. I'm not disagreeing. I believe in a right sized distribution (for redundancy) in most systems. The right size is near the point where further efficiency by being bigger flattens out.

There are point applications, usually in a desert or powering a remote roadside devices, where solar makes a ton of sense. Not so much for Alaska. Regionally in the US, there are a some places that are mostly barren of people where some humongous eye sore farm of whirly blades may not annoy, and maybe there is enough wind energy to repay the energy investment in building it. For the same investment, you could probably implement 4 times as much Ng generation in 1/100th the land space and even implement carbon sequestration. Plus, you could locate small plants close enough to your major cities where they actually use the power. I guess my point is that the economics should drive it, not the politics. I also think "special interests" include the fossil fuel guys, as well as those who are itching to be the next darlings to get in bed with our politicians.

I've researched for my home, both solar, and wind generators, and they just aren't money, or energy saving devices for me. I live in a bad place for solar, wind and geothermal. Mostly, unless they perfect the miniaturized nuclear reactor -- home edition, I'm stuck tied to the grid. The one thing that would make sense for my dwelling some day would be to implement co-generation with a geothermal heat pump. I live on about 2 acres (which also abuts a wetland, so there is room for the piping.